okay uh it's about time uh good evening everyone welcome to tonight's event my name is C Chen associate professor in the philosophy Department it's my honor to host tonight's event this is the third and final lecture by Professor Michael sandel in beta tonight's part topic is uh ocracy uh it is actually one of the main issues that has been running through the first two lectures on the ethics of genetic engineering and AI with Professor Michael sandel we have discussed the question of competition and distribution of what role technology might play in the process the question of productivity and efficiency the possibility of unlimited power and progress but also Al the question of fairness Justice love sympathy and even Mercy we have discussed our drive for Perfection but also all those imperfections of ourselves that we actually cherish all those fragile and Precious Moments Of Our Lives that we don't want to be corrupted by the Loess mechanism of development and prog progress in the first two lectures I think Professor Michael sandel has done a perfect job not of persuading us of his own ideas and answers but of inviting us and helping us see more clearly the questions themselves and through these questions to reflect upon and appreciate the inherent complexity of our Human Condition before we begin tonight's talk please allow me once again to introduce our honored and much loved guest Professor Michael Sander is the professor of government at Harvard University and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences he has published numerous books on Democracy Liberty Justice and the meritocracy his works and lectures are among the most important influential and Rel relevant ones of our time Professor sander is one of the most inspiring thinkers and one of the best lecturers and successful writers of our time and so um I think it's almost tempting to think that he himself is a perfect sample of tonight's topic um aristocracy uh but of course this is just a joke because philosophy is different from Power because the talot of philosophy is to explore to inspire and to share the motivation behind is not uh PL Lexia but filia and this I think we have witnessed this in the person of Our Guest Professor Michael Sander and also joining us for tonight is our second guest Professor bong a professor at school of philosophy and fan University a member of the pontifical Academy of social sciences a distinguished professor at Shanghai universities and an adjunct Phil uh professor at New York University of school of nor his primary research areas include childish philosophy political philosophy philosophy of science and philosophy of physics the plan for tonight is the same as before first the speaker will give the talk for roughly 1 hour and then uh we move to the conversation part between our two guests ideally for half an hour and finally for the time left we have the Q&A section between the audience and the two professors and okay now let's begin welcome Professor sorry sorry welcome Professor Michael Sander thank you thank you it's great to be back with you for the third lecture where we are gathering together and our subject tonight is meritocracy and our subject tonight is meritocracy what I would like to propose is a possibly provocative challenge to meritocracy and to explore it with you the challenge is that I suggest that there is such a thing as the tyranny of Merit now how can Merit be a kind of tyranny we ordinarily think of Merit as a good thing if I need surgery I want a well-qualified surgeon to perform it that's Merit if I'm flying in an airplane I want a well-qualified pilot at the controls that's Merit being well qualified to perform an important social role that's a good thing so how can meritocracy become a kind of tyranny that's the question I'd like to explore with you tonight and as in previous evenings to explore it with you through a discussion are you ready to join me in that discussion okay now let me Begin by making an observation about the role that meritocracy is playing today in our societies including accounting for some of the polarization in our societies how did meritocracy become a kind of tyranny in recent decades The Divide between winners and losers has been deepening poisoning our politics setting us apart this has partly to do with widening inequalities of income and wealth but it's not only that it has also to do with the changing attitudes toward success that have accompanied the widening inequalities those who've landed on top during this age of globalization those who've landed on top have come to believe that their success is their own doing the measure of their Merit and that they therefore deserve the Bounty that the market bestows upon them and by implication that those who struggle those Left Behind must deserve their fate too this way of thinking about success arises from a seemingly attractive ideal the principle of meritocracy the principle that says in so far as chances are equal the winners deserve their winnings now you may think and you would be right that in our societies chances are not truly equal those who are born children born into poor families tend to stay poor as adults upward Mobility exists but it isn't easy Studies have shown Studies have tried to measure actually how many generations it would take at current levels of upward Mobility how many generations would it take in various countries for someone born poor in the bottom 10% to rise not to the top but to the to the median income in their societies now there are some places where Mobility rates are quite high in Denmark for example it takes two generations only on average for some to rise from poverty to the median in the United States said to be the land of opportunity it takes five generations so some would say this shows that the American dream is alive and well and living in Copenhagen according to this study and there are various measures various studies come up with different estimates but according to this study in China it takes seven generations so it's not it's not easy to rise now what are the implications for meritocracy one possible conclusion would be that this simply shows that we don't live up to the meritocratic principles we profess it simply shows that we need to do a better job of bringing about a true meritocracy where chances are truly equal where there is genuine Fair equality of opportunity we can think of the image of a race if everybody starts the race at the same starting point that's one way of defining equality of opportunity everyone has a chance to join the race everyone has a chance to take the gaka exam everyone has the same chance to apply to Harvard if they want to or to bah that's a kind of formal equality of opportunity but everyone knows that some people have certain advantages when the race begins some people have had good coaching and have very good running shoes and have special nutrition that enables them and and and training facilities that enables them to prepare for the race they're going to have an advantage so it's not enough that everyone starts at the same starting point a true meritocracy genuine equality of opportunity would require background conditions in preparation that were truly equal suppose we could achieve true equality of opportunity so that people began the race with the same advantages the running shoes the health the coaching the training facilities here's my first question then then we would have a perfect meritocracy then would we have a just society would we have a good society would we be able to say that the race was fair in the sense that if everyone had truly equal opportunity to prepare for the race would we be would we then be able to say that the the winners of the race deserve their winnings here's our first question how many would say under the conditions I've described where we achieve genuine equality of opportunity then we can say that the winners deserve their winnings and how many would say no even under those conditions we could not say that the winners deserve their winnings are you ready for the vote how many say yes the winners would under those special conditions deserve their winnings raise your hand and how many would disagree the majority disagree let's hear from someone who disagrees why would you say that the winners don't deserve their winnings even if opportunities are genuinely equal who will Who will begin our discussion and tell us why yes thank you uh well I think that and tell us your name first uh my name is Shen and I came yesterday yes shenu yes yes and I think that there are going there's going to be some uh random factors uh like when they are having the race someone might trip down and someone might run into another one's track and they may not follow the rules so even if they have the same opportunities if they infringe the rules or there are some random factors uh then the winners uh don't deserve their winning okay so let's take the random factors suppose there's a little Stone on the track and someone trips maybe the best runner actually trips on the stone that's in the path on track that would be a random Factor it would not be the fault of the runner that that stone was there just bad luck and a less a lesser Runner not the best might win and so we would say that the best deserved to win but due to this random Factor the small Stone in the track the best runner didn't win so that's a very good example of why we might say that the winner of the race wouldn't necessarily deserve the winnings if they won only due to the best runner tripping and falling by accident that's a good example um thank you for that is there anyone else who can think now let's suppose that the track is very carefully prepared so that there are no Stones no random factors no stones or no slippery patches or puddles of water that might cause accidents of this kind and in in that case if we remove all the random factors then then would you say the winner deserves the winnings I think still don't as I have mentioned just now even on a perfect track yes because some may no no random factors yes but someone may not follow the rules like when they are uh running on this on the track someone may run into another other ones blocking their ways so when someone like uh they do not follow the rules then but that's cheating yeah okay well then let's say that we imagine a race where there is no and I will change this let's let's then imagine that the track is perfect okay and nobody cheats nobody trips somebody else or runs in their Lane then the winner deserves their winnings uh yes I think so yes yes okay now let's see if there's someone who would say even in that case special case where we remove the random factors still in that special case the winner may not deserve the winnings yes do we have a microphone on this side that we can quickly get it would be better if people with microphones could stand in the aisles so it's a little bit quicker okay go ahead okay thank you my name is Jo uh and I majored in international relations yes yeah and my point is like if we said uh if the people who the winners deserve the the game they deserves to be win then how about the the the losers so they deserve to be to to be get out they deserve failure so my point is why we why we should to take in this competition or we should to run around the the playground so there are many other things to do then why we should to be evaluated by this game so this is my point all right so that's that's an interesting point that if the only winnings that are available in the society require running around a track as f fast as you can then that raises the question why aren't there other ways of deciding who wins Awards or money and why why just running around a track shouldn't other abilities besides foot speed yeah that's my point determine rewards and honors fair enough and we're going to come to that but what about before we move to that point about whether there are other forms of competition that should determine honors and rewards what about the foot race itself would you say that for for the foot race in that limited domain that if everyone had equal training up opportunities and if the track were perfect that at least for the race the winner of the race would deserve the winnings that go to the best runner I would say because if we put this abstract situation into the reality yes the first thing come to come into my mind is Olympics yes so we can say that the champing he's the best uh his best uh yeah runner in this world yes but also like the others maybe they are also competitive they just they just for example they lose a little bit luck or something else so well what's the luck we removed the luck by removing all all the Pebbles and stones and slippery places on the track yeah it's like so what luck is left it's it's hard to explain because um I remember there's an interview to a tiot tennis player and he say like in the competition in Olympic you you never know what will happen right yeah there are unpredictable developments yeah all right well let's stay with the example of the Olympics let's say an Olympic race and assuming thank you for that assuming we have a perfect track and you might well say well the Olympic should not be the only arena for honoring people but let's say within the Olympics with the perfect track no slippery places who would say still the winner may not deserve the winnings yes let's see if we can get a microphone here yeah thank you uh people are born different they have different abilities they have different Talent so if someone who are not good in running he have to compete with other guy who is very good at running that would be not equal for them to uh compete in this running game all right that so this is another argument so even if everyone has equal access to training and preparation mhm yeah and even if the track is perfect no random factors like stones or Pebbles to trip yes still you think that some people are more talented as Runners than others they have greater athletic gifts maybe MH and that's not their doing that's nothing to do with that's their good luck yes and would you say therefore that in a perfect meritocracy mhm an Olympics run is a perfect meritocracy it's predictable who will win especially if it's a perfect meritocracy the person with the greatest athletic gifts yes as a runner yes but having those gifts is not and the success that those gifts make possible is not the doing of the the winner yes it's a matter of luck it's almost like a random Factor like a Stone on the track yeah being a gifted Runner so to imagine who's a great Olympic runner usin bolt have you heard of him he's the fastest or was the fastest Sprinter in the world he's just a gifted Runner so that's random too you're suggesting or a matter of luck and if it's a matter of luck it can't be the basis for deservingness yes yes all right what tell me your name again uh my name is Le Lee yeah Le Leu I came here here yesterday also yeah okay thank thank you for that now that's that's an argument of principle against the idea of deservingness that natural talents are not our doing but our good luck and would you say the same if we expand Beyond Olympic running to having the intellectual capacities to score well on the gaka yeah and so if you extended your argument to the gaka be from the Olympics would you say that those who score highest the winners of that race can't really think of themselves as deserving the benefits that flow from scoring high I think no because there are much more talent in this aers yeah and that tal and if it's Talent mhm it's not their doing yes it's not the result of their effort and training and hard work alone yes okay let's see if everybody agrees with this argument who disagrees and there must be some who disagree because some all right yes toward the back some say the winner do deserve their does deserve the winnings yes can we get him a microphone please um hello I'm Leonardo from Brazil I'm doing PhD applied economics yeah um I do believe that we have to come to a sense in certain circumstances to select and be able to achieve uh what is deserving so is deserving the this context the recognition brought by a medal or the distribution of resources because in this sense if the preparation is perfectly equal between all the participants then what are they winning only the recognition that they achieve that in their certain task that they perform better than others or they are receiving more things so I would question also the deserving part of it what okay what is the what what is the prize you're asking so if the prize is a gold medal at the Olympics then you would say that's deserved that's recognition but if the prize is a career where you make more money than people who don't win races then you would say that's not deserved yeah maybe that would be unfair because it's not proportional to what is being actually measured okay because being good at running should perhaps uh lead you to deserve a gold medal but it should not lead to your deserving to make more money than somebody else yeah not necessarily but then I would also bring the argument and this is my question uh if we have Generations that couldn't have that same per perfect competition yeah and they strived in anequal competition how can we distribute the best deservings unto the present right if if present generations and their opportunities reflect past unfairness or disadvantage that's an important question let's Reserve that question so one challenge to the idea that the winner does uh does not deserve all of the winnings has to do with asking well what actually is the prize but let's let's see if there is someone who will defend meritocracy in principle against the objection that the talents that enable people to get ahead whether it's in the Olympics or an admission to universities those talents are not really our are doing can't be the basis for our deserving anything they're just our good luck they're just our good luck who disagrees with that idea and will tell us why they disagree who will speak in defense of talent as the basis for deservingness yes uh thank you go ahead yeah uh my name is y and uh I agree with the uh view that uh you you have just said um because I believe that um it's hard to say what is actually um made of us um is our talent not a component of our own selves if so what is of ourselves only the things we do but well uh as the previous girl had said um if we only measure people through something that is kind of well done after their birth like well um they have consistent worked on something perhaps the people with better talents they have also worked on it and they worked a lot but just because they have better talents they cannot be measured and uh from a second perspective I also agree with the previous students view about uh what's the price would be or why we are holding this competition for example if we're holding competition to find people who are the best Runners uh or the people with better power so that uh they can be uh a part of our military or something they have to be the strongest person and um sometimes the talents between people cannot be purely manded through something that is done after our births okay yeah so let let's let's to test this you're saying well our talents are actually part of our our being part of ourselves yeah and so you hesitate to consider talents purely arbitrary yes such that they don't provide the basis for deserving this yes let's let's test this by moving beyond the Olympics to the distribution of income and wealth in a society let's take imagine your best most inspiring teacher in high school can you remember that teacher you probably can remember their name I can remember the name of my most inspiring teacher in high school they have a big impact on us now would you say that let's compare the earnings that that teacher deserves compared to someone who earns a lot of money but I mean a lot of money who would such a person be Donald Trump well he may actually not have quite as much money as he claims let's think of someone who's wealthier than Donald Trump he does have more money than Donald Trump but I I want to think about someone someone who's popular who makes a lot of money who would that be who Taylor Swift how much money did Taylor Swift make last year do you have any idea huh about a billion dollars something like that now how much did your best most inspiring High School teacher make last year quite a bit less now so here's the question now would you say that Taylor Swift deserves to make 10,000 times more than your best high school teacher how many say yes there aren't that many Taylor Swift fans here how many say no she doesn't deserve to make 10,000 times more than your best high school teacher all right let's hear from someone who says she does yeah she does someone over here yes tell us why okay I'm his I'm her fan and you're a fan yeah she inspired me a lot more than my high school teacher more than anyone in the Earth so I think she she deserve the money she makes more money than your high school teacher but what else did you say she she inspired me a lot she inspires you more yeah yeah yeah than your best high school teacher really yeah she teach me a lot how how did she what first what's your name oh okay I also named myself tellor I didn't hear I I missed it say that say it again I'm Taylor oh that's your name that's your name but you're not related to her yeah okay so she T Taylor Swift uh inspires you more than your best teacher what was the name of your best teacher okay her name is called uh I yes and so how could Taylor Swift possibly inspire you what what subject did that teacher teach you Chinese huh Chinese yeah so Taylor Swift didn't teach you Chinese she didn't motivate you to be an excellent student did she so how how can you say she inspires you more than your best teacher um when I was down she would always encouraged me by using her music she encouraged you but she doesn't even know you what do you mean see yeah I know did you go to one of her concerts I wish but not yeah it's hard to get a ticket yeah and the tickets are kind of expensive but she is Taylor Swift is is popular throughout the world and I'm told she's also very popular in China is that right yeah yeah in fact one graduate student I met the other day said Taylor Swift is very popular in China and then he said more popular than Michael sandel but that didn't hurt my feelings so what do people say to Taylor's argument that actually she does deserve Taylor Swift to make 10,000 times more than your best teacher because she provides inspiration not only to Taylor but to Mill tens of millions of people who disagrees who disagrees and doesn't think she deserves to make all that much more than your best high school teacher anyone and who will tell us why yes go ahead stand up and pass the microphone uh hi my name is varia I'm from Russia and I study Linguistics here in Beijing and um I think that Taylor Swift doesn't deserve more money than my favorite High School teacher because um I generally don't think that money is something that people deserve because it's um just one of the measurements of uh something that we can deserve and it's not fully um representing what a person can get based on the Merit well what does it it ra this raises an interesting question what does money measure or what should it measure do you think I think that money doesn't really measure um what we usually think it measure well let let's take let's what what do we usually think it measures let me propose an answer what we usually think is that the money people make is the measure of their contribution to the economy and to the common good and that's when we say that Taylor Swift uh May deserve to make a lot more money than a school teacher what we're really saying is that we think taken as a whole the value of her contribution to the economy to the society to the common good the value of her contribution is greater than the value of the contribution of the teacher yes but you reject that you reject that idea I think that behind this idea there is the comparison between influence over one person and more than one person and in my personal opinion I know that some people may not agree uh I think that there is no difference between influence and one person and maybe helping them to find light in a dark time yes then influencing thousands and millions of people because um behind every person there is someone who helped that person in some period of time and it doesn't matter how many other people that did they influence over their lifetime okay very good pass the microphone and see what the reply is from I think is quite fine I agree her opinion and like I know that t is um influence a lot of people and my high school teacher only influence my my my classmate so the the people the amount of people is not equal so um it will cost the money they make in uh different yes okay well this what this discussion has illuminated really the principles the assumptions that are an issue in the debate about who in the economy at least who deserves what and why and before stating what we've learned from this discussion I want to thank everyone who's joined in this round of the discussion about deservingness so what we can learn listening to this debate is that one objection to the meritocratic idea that if chances are equal the winners deserve their winnings at least one powerful objection is that even if the meritocracy is fair even if there's genuine equality of opportunity there are still matters of luck or random factors not doing of not the doing of the winner that contribute to their success especially the fact that some are just more gifted than others whether it's in Olympic running or in intellectual ability or in having the singing voice and artistic imagination to inspire people like Taylor in dark times that having certain natural gifts and talents can't be said to be my doing and therefore it can't be the basis of deservingness and closely connected to this is another contingency or element of luck even if I did following the suggestion of the person in in the back even if we agreed that my talents are part of my person the fact that I live in a society that happens to prize and reward the talents I have in abundance that's not my doing that too is my good luck let's take LeBron James great basketball player makes enormous amounts of money the fact that he lives in a society that loves basketball is a big factor in the money his talents bring but it's not his doing that he lives at a time when everybody loves basketball that's his good luck if LeBron James had lived back in the the days of the Italian Renaissance he would have been just as naturally gifted as an athlete but he wouldn't have made much money because they didn't care so much about basketball then they cared more about fresco painting So this too is a matter of luck the argument from contingency luck random factors including not only stones in the track but also some people just being more gifted than others so that's one objection a second flaw in the meritocratic ideal is different it's not really an an argument about fairness it's an argument about the attitudes toward success that even a perfect meritocracy encourages because if chances are truly equal there is all the greater tendency for the winners to assume that their success is their own doing and this creates a kind of hubis or arrogance among the winners a tendency for the successful to inhale too deeply of their own success to forget the luck and good fortune that helps them on their way to forget their indebtedness to those who make their achievements possible to forget the fact that they are lucky to live in a society that happens to prize the talents they have in abundance and so here are two different objections principled objections to meritocracy one about fairness the other about hubris about the attitudes toward success the tendency of the winners to believe that their success is their own doing and the tendency of those who lose out to think of themselves as losers as deserving of their fate blaming themselves this tendency of meritocracy to produce hubris or arrogance among the winners and humiliation or a sense of defeat among those who struggle is closely connected I think to the politics of our time to the backlash against Elites especially well- credentialed and professional Elites we see this in many societies around the world in recent decades as inequalities have widened many have argued many mainstream political parties and politicians have argued if you're worried about wage stagnation if you're struggling with inequality the solution is for you to go get a University degree this has been the advice to working people struggling with inequality during the age of globalization if you want to compete and win in the global economy the politicians have said go to university what you earn will depend on what you learn you can make it if you try this slogan the Ric of rising puts responsibility on the individual to overcome the effects of widening inequality rather than reconsiders the inequality the structural sources of those inequalities and so I think there is a connection between the anger and resentment and the sense of humiliation that even a perfect meritocracy creates and the deeply polarized politics of our time but there's another there's another objection to not an objection so much as a kind of tyranny associated with meritocracy we've discussed the effect of meritocracy on those who lose out who don't win the Olympic race who don't win admission to a top university who don't get a high score on the gaka but there is another toll that meritocracy takes not on the so-called losers but even on the winners because if you think about well what's what's a historic alternative to meritocracy in aristocratic Society where where you land depends on where you're born the accident of birth whether your family is Born Into whether you're born into a noble family or as as a surf or as a peasant and compared to a hereditary aristocracy meritocracy seems like a breath of fresh air a source of equality and freedom people are no longer determined in their life prospects by the accident of birth but the effect of basing social roles and economic success on your ability to compete for admission to a top university and therefore to compete for a well-paying career the effect is to shift the responsibility onto you to strive to work hard to study long hours to go to cram courses do you know what I'm referring to now and to have parents who want you to succeed and there Therefore your parents and your teachers and the society Place enormous pressure on you to make your own future to work hard to devote effort and they understand the system they understand the world into which you will enter they understand how your fate and your future will be decided and so for your own benefit your parents tell you that your fate is in your hands you can make it if you try everything depends on the effort you expend but what kind of childhood and Adolescence what kind of high school experience does this produce a pretty intense anxious pressured experience and so one of the effects of meritocracy of intense meritocratic competition and I'm thinking here especially of competition to win admission to University top universities is it takes a toll on the emotional and psychological well-being of the winners we were talking before about those who lose out but what about the winners the toll arguably the the damage emotionally and psychologically the tendency to view your education as an instrument to something else rather than something rather than an opportunity to explore and to reflect uh and to learn to love learning for its own sake is any of this familiar what I'm describing now what do you think let me put it in the form of a question if you're willing to give your answer by a show of hands how many would people how many of you would say reflecting on your own experience and on the experience of your peers how many of you would say that the intense competitive pressures to succeed as you've been growing up have that th would say that those pressures have had a damaging effect on the emotional and psychological well-being of well let's say of the people you know you don't even have to speak personally about it if you don't want to let let's let's see by a show of hands whether you see this as a problem or not how many would say that it does have a damaging effect on the emotional and psychological well-being of the students who are caught up in this competition and how many don't think so or have not experienced it so quite a few people have observed this or experienced this let let me hear from someone who who said yes who who does see it this way how do why do you say [Music] so hi I'm Aiden from Malaysia so I speaking from my personal experience I'm not applying to the grad school so that's an emotional roller coaster every day feels like a torture to me because I feel very helpless and feel very desperate um there's really no one uh I can uh look out for help and everyone's gains if anyone re receive and offers feels like um it's hurting my emotions it feels like I I don't I am I that bad or am if I'm not I'm if uh I'm worse than anyone else so that I question my ability at you can say at all so I don't know if I can continue to um study to to pursue further studies that's why now I'm losing confidence in my life okay and you're and where are you in your studies now um you're studying here you're a student here I'm studying here an undergraduate yes as senior a senior yes what do you study by the way um International politics yeah and so when you when your friends or people you know win admission to some graduate school yeah that makes you feel that's not quite uncomfortable it makes you feel uncomfortable let's say if um that's my dream school where I am yeah if they get into your dream school and you don't but you got into this school everyone got into this school okay and so doesn't that make you feel like a winner no in this environment I don't okay so in this environment you don't because in this environment there's always someone who wins something even bigger yes so I feel like even though in uh you even though in a very prestigious universities like P universities the the competition still go uh still still continues even it continues even though in Harvard I believe it still continues that's never stop even though in within the like professors they they still have competitions even though they got the tener track right yeah so it it it it will it it will never ends until they have like the only winner this will only be one instead of like a group right and so there's a kind of endless cycle of competition and even when you win one competition there will be next round there'll be the next round and the next round after that there's more exam coming up and what's the alternative to this cycle of competition and yet another and yet another and yet another what what's well you've you've said powerfully Aiden how demoralizing this is yeah and it means is even the winners feel constant anxiety and pressure for the next round so when you think about the society as a whole if people even the winners feel this constant pressure to compete in the next round and in the next round what um what would be a better way do you think I I mean for a lot of us that when they even though they got admitted to pcking universities once they figure out they couldn't really get into the next round on next admission yes most of them just quit wow demoral me like it it they stop uh they they will realize they are maybe more they're not really make for academic they go to work or even though go to the things that they just give up their dreams yeah to change the AL to change the alternative career path yes giving up on their dreams yes and it just creates um desperation in general for everyone all right do people how many people find this familiar how many think Aiden is describing something that's familiar to you yes yeah is there anyone else who would like to add to Aiden's account do you do you experience this too those I want to get someone who hasn't yet yes go ahead can we please get a microphone yeah uh thanks uh I'm P from graduate from uh graduate of school of education actually I have uh different opinion about actually I feel it's a privilege that I stay in the university for a long time uh what I'm thinking of this about my peers that in high school actually they cannot bring some uh experience of success uh before they go to the society which I could I thought that could be a moral cost yes that those so that's on those who who did not win admission actually because I'm thinking even though that we have to face a lot of competitions still we kind have some uh positive experience which we thought that that could be some uh few of us so the competition is a positive experience for you for the winners for for the winners but what about Aiden's point that even the winners are caught up in a cycle of more and more and more competition that feels self-defeating or demoralizing you don't agree I thought it's I think it's kind of a necessary cost it's a necessary cost of what exactly of being successful because you have more self Eastern more self-esteem Yeah the more you win the more self-esteem but that suggests that self-esteem depends on winning and keeping on winning so self-esteem do you think that self-esteem Aiden what about what would you say that that you we get self-esteem by winning so competition is you a good thing you get when you win but you lose and you you your one failure might make you question your past achievement uh because you can't get into the next stage so you say okay this might be my Peak and in China there's like the the concept of evolution which nrian means everyone n n right so you're really describing your personal experience yeah you you you feel guilty when you stop improving yourself or like you stop learning yeah taking a rest yeah because you know everyone else going to going to invest all of their time and uh get ahead of you yeah so I I feel I'm I'm mentally C but it's by my own yeah I I voluntarily or involuntarily put myself in a mandle cage yes it reminds me now I didn't grow up in this system and I didn't have to prepare for the gako but I experienced some of what Aiden is describing even when I was in high school when I was I don't know 15 years old I was in a a math class where after every quiz in every exam there was a new seating plan because for the there were three rows in the class that were designated honor rows of seats and which seat you sat in depended on your grade point average in that class as of that moment so the seating arrangement changed every few days every time there was an exam or a quiz not only that I remember the teacher would announce the new seating arrangement before giving back your quiz or your exam now I was not I was not the best in my class in math I was pretty good but not the best so maybe I would be sitting in the third seat and then the new seating arrangement would be announced by the teacher and maybe someone else was sitting in the third so I had to gather my books and wait well maybe I'll be in number four now well no somebody else was there and then so there's the suspense but also the humiliation of having to move your seat each time now sometimes you got to go up a higher seat number two maybe that's better but what it created was a kind of Perpetual competition where we were concerned not only with our grades we were also obsessed with other people's grades with their success and it was hard for that not to distract us from actually the learning what that's from like the school grading is always graded on relative skill well so it's always about ranking not learning so what what do these examples illustrate first uh I want to thank um are the participants in this discussion which is really on a quite a sensitive topic and discussed really really in a moving way so what is what does this tell us what do these two parts of our discussion reveal about the tyranny of Merit the tyranny of Merit is exerts a kind of tyranny in two directions toward those who struggle to those who lose out we've discussed the elements of unfairness the moral arbitrariness of who has certain talents the moral arbitrariness of whether I happen to have the talents that Society prizes and rewards at the moment and we've also discussed the arrogance that Elites can come to have toward those who struggle the tendency to look down on those less fortunate than ourselves so that's a problem for the so-called losers a kind of tyranny but the last part of the discussion suggests that the winners are wounded too though in a different way wounded by the attitudes toward success that meritocracy even a fully realized meritocracy produces and so if the tyranny of Merit is damaging for those who lose out and for those who win this gives us reason to ask whether we need to pay attention to the dark side of meritocracy which can be summed up in the observation that the Dark Side of meritocracy is that it is corrosive of the common good it leads the winners to believe their successes their own doing and it demoralizes those who lose out Merit in the history of thought and aspiration Merit began its its career its history as an empowering idea the idea that we can through work and effort succeed that our success is in our own hands that we can make it if we try and this idea makes for an exhilarating promise of individual Freedom Our Fate is in our hands it doesn't depend on the accident of birth that's an empowering idea or so it seems but this vision of freedom is flawed it's flawed because it points away points us away from the obligations of a shared project points us away from the common good the meritocratic conviction that people deserve whatever riches the market bestows on their talents makes solidarity makes Community an almost impossible project for why why did the successful owe anything to the less advantaged members of society the answer to this question depends on recognizing that for all our striving for all our effort for all our hard work we are not self-made and self-sufficient finding oursel in a society that prizes my talents is my good fortune not my due recognizing this recalling the role of luck in life recalling our indebtedness to those who make our achievements possible this recognition can prompt a certain humility a certain humility in the face of success and this Spirit of humility it's an it's a virtue of character that meritocracy tends to erode but this Spirit of humility is not only a personal virtue it's also a civic virtue and a civic virtue that we need now a lively sense of the role of luck in life can prompt can inspire a certain humility the humility that says looking upon those less fortunate than ourselves the humility that says there but for the accident of birth or the mystery of fate or the grace of God for factors I can't control that could be me such humility if we could achieve it could be the beginning of the way back from the harsh ethic of success that today drives us apart it could be the beginning of a Way Beyond under the tyranny of Merit toward a less polarized less rancorous more generous public life thank you all very [Applause] much and now for a discussion please uh sit in the middle well uh Now we move to yeah okay by please uh be on the left left side and now we move to the second part of tonight's event uh conversation discussion maybe debate between our two guests Professor Michael Sander and Professor Bon um thank you let's hear what Professor B have to say to the discussion yeah uh thank you for the invitation uh it's a great pleasure uh to uh come back to my amama ma I came from this University and also it's my hometown uh so I'm on exile in Shanghai at Fan University so it's uh it's a great pleasure to be back and uh uh I I I listened to some video clips from the last two days uh I was really amazed at how well uh my little brothers and sisters you know uh spoke English you know when I was your age when I was at bada uh my English was good but nowhere close to uh your level uh so uh I I was actually a teacher at Shang it just a private language school about how to prepare gr exams speak of the crem courses uh and uh so just please accept my admirations of your your English uh but at the same time I think your English is so good because uh I guess you come from very well-to-do families so in a way the fact your English good is a symptom of the kind of meritocracy uh professor sandel is criticizing uh and uh uh so I'll come back to insult you uh later uh so let me just uh mention another anecdote uh I was in a class uh taught by Professor sandel uh uh Professor Harvey Mansfield and George will uh Washington colonist and uh will and U uh Mansville they're on the right of the political spectrum and the profess and Del is on the left and so in the class there was very Fierce uh debate on all sorts of political and social issues but at the same time very civil and friendly uh I think the the the last day of the golden age uh nowadays uh even universities are full of Cil cultures all the sort of thought pleas from both left and right and uh uh I think back then uh uh it's 25 years ago a quarter of century ago uh it just makes me sound old um and actually makes you even sound older uh and um uh you know that was time when GE W Bush was the president and he was not liked by many people especially people in Boston at Cambridge and uh uh people say you know he I mean his people say history will judge him Kinder back then I thought that you must be joking uh but now actually Geor W bush looks really like a Statesman uh compared to what we have today um and uh so just what happened right um and so 2016 I I was back to Harvard uh to be a fellow at the suffer Center for ethics and uh I I I I I I was supposed to do a presentation uh defending meritocracy which become part of my my my book in English and Professor sandel kindly agreed to comment on my presentation and as a result he came up with a book criticizing mocracy uh it just shows you how effective my pres presentation was uh and uh uh the the uh and president kindly invited me for lunch uh and as a fate would have it that's the that was the day after Trump was elected and uh I still remember you told me and I told you both of us didn't have much sleep last night right you know just uh I was just shocked I you know uh and uh um how this guy uh could be uh elected and uh uh and uh um so so so in a way I think I I I'm very sympathetic to uh what Professor andelle criticized about meritocracy uh and uh although I I I defend meritocracy yet I think in the real world So-Cal mocracy we see lot of problems uh you know Professor mentioned education a lot and uh just to repeat what he already said actually I wrote a paper in Chinese 15 years ago talking about the same uh effect namely we live in soal knowledge economy uh knowledge can be translated into wealth and then wealth can be also translated into knowledge right your parents if your parents make good money and they can they can put you in good schools and uh offer you all the resources right and then you enter good universities and then you get good jobs and then the cycle just goes on right and so in that sense on the surface there is mocracy there's Mobility deep down there's no Mobility is lost completely and uh so in a way it's even worse than the cast system than the the kind of feudalism feudalistic system because in that system no the noble men knew they were born with privileges but in this of so-called know equality based meritocracy people think the successful people think that they deserve to be successful because they work hard they're smart right those those losers they're stupid right and they're lazy they deserve to get what they they have so in in that sense I think you know this kind of fake equality fake Mobility is worse than just you kind of cast fixed uh system stagnant uh system and uh uh so in that sense I'm I I totally agree with Professor uh sandel's Point um but then uh we see that you know professor sandel said you so maybe we we should forget about this kind of credential based uh system and uh instead of I mean the Democrats in the US like to give more education uh to the common people so that they can move up in this knowledge based credential based uh economy right instead you know Prof proposed that we should celebrate the Dignity of work right the Dignity of everyday labors um and uh uh I guess that's where I differ Prof Professor sandel um because if you look at the you know what actually happened to the so-called you know blue color workers right and many of them are losing out in this kind of uh uh um more more techn technologically driven uh economy right and first Automation and now ai and they're so they're losing out and uh but when they're losing out uh Mo many of them they don't try to find new jobs they don't find dignity any work rather there's this opio crisis right they rather stay home not taking care of anything uh but is smoking P right and uh uh so that's you know one extreme um but then some people stood up against this kind of uh um uh uh economy and I think very recently there is this PO Port workers strike you know uh uh uh workers who work in uh those you know Harbors big Harbors port and uh they they uh they they strike against uh among many things uh uh uh automation right so finally they signed a contract where uh the um the owners of those you know ports agree now to use too much uh too many machines in the work right and on the one hand I'm very sympathetic to those po poor workers who are losing jobs to those machines on the other hand I I find it's a little bit disturbing that the only way to keep Dignity of work is to stop machines from running right and I think to the uh to the to the to the other e uh in China we have a thing called cultural revolution right and where uh you know any spiritual exercises are condemned universities are closed right only uh Labor uh uh labor is celebrated and uh I'm not sure you know depends on your perspective I guess for nerd like me this not that's not really good time uh for me to live in right and uh so I guess I'm I'm I'm suspicious of the solution uh Professor sandel offered you know uh I I I see all the problems um but whether dig of work uh were more dignity to the common people is the solution to the problem because we see that you know in this situation the common people either on one extreme they become very passive right in China called T right they they they they they they Li flat right they refuse to do anything on the other hand you have kind of ignorance blind uh uh Mania right uh all sorts of you know rightwing or radical lightwing uh revolutions and uh I guess more um generally speaking um we all know that Professor sandel came from the soal communitarian background right and I think the solution uh you mentioned in other not pro probably not in today's lecture but the your writings is this idea of you know building building up uh communities right uh uh being our communities as a solution of this kind of faceless Machine technocratic World um I I mean again I'm I'm all for it I think Community is essential actually to U for most of us you know the large scale Society doesn't really matter uh to us in most cases rather it's a small community you you live in I think that's very uh beautiful important idea however I think a fact of uh today's society or modern society in general that it is uh modernity is defined by large Society of strangers right and uh uh you cannot live in your small community forever you have to face you know uh you have to encounter faceless strangers all the time and in order to deal with facely strangers we need something called bureaucracy uh we need something um the So-Cal deep State the Trump people uh are now trying to destroy right and uh I think just in general um in the west that's my impression uh living in the US for 14 years total is that I mean Europe included um the uh this this kind of Republican Spirit or communitarian Spirit right the idea that we work together as a community uh I think that as I said that's a really beautiful idea but when we are in this kind of large Society strangers we need something more than Community I think maybe that's the problem with uh mainstream Western political philosophy in general because this the uh the spiritual Heritage is really going back to Athens and the Roman Republic right but they they were small republics and so every time I when I heard Americans saying that this Republic of ours I found it funny right you know uh Athens there are only 20,000 citizens right 200,000 people but only 20,000 citizens uh much smaller than than b right the size of B and uh um so in that kind of setting you know a lot of Republican Arrangement or communitarian Arrangements would work pretty well but we don't live in society anymore uh so in politics uh uh I think Size Matters right and what kind of size the society is demands what kind of politics so in that so just to some out this point you know I think communitarianism I really like this idea I think it's very important also you know I I lot of confusion ISM uh uh so confusion also understand human beings are social by Nature we are not you know this kind of lonely individuals so I think we're on the same page I'm just thinking that uh communitarianism the building communities is not sufficient to solve the problem today and actually this idea in a way is even poisonous because it it breaths this resentment of deep state to me you know evil good or evil deep state is is essential feature or bureaucracy is essential feature of uh of any modern regime right and uh the second issue is uh the ideal equality right I think this is running issue here and again you know from my own the resources I'm using confusion ISM confusions early confusion especially some early confusion like mens they believe in uh uh uh equality in terms of potentials everyone can become whatever he or she uh can be and the the government is responsible for offering opportunities for everyone to succeed right so if equal inequality is a result of you know pedigree uh you bloodline uh social status that's just wrong right we need to uh to to to destroy that that's why I'm totally on the same page with Professor sandal in terms of this Crim of this fake meritocracy um so I think that's the the the uh the shared idea but then I think the crucial difference that for confusions and I think I tend to agree with their observation in reality um not everyone can make it only the few can make it can realize their potentials can actualize their potentials that's just the simple reality of human life uh and related to this point I think this of communitarian or republican idea encourage people uh citizens to participate in politics right to get involved and I think again that's that's a very important idea we should the government should offer all the all OPP opportunities for people to be involved not not just you know for one thing the the um the voting day for the president in the US is Tuesday which is just Scandal right you know it should be a holiday you know so that working people can can vote uh easily uh and uh so you know I think the government should do everything possible to uh get people in involved but again um uh you know the kind of view I tend to adopt is that uh uh however hard the government tries in the large Society of strangers many people are are going to be indifferent to politics I mean not just soal common people me right you know I I even if I could vote for the mayor of Shanghai I wouldn't bother to vote because I only live in fan area I don't care you know whether they build bridge in another District or not right it's not it's not relevant relevant to me right so in large Society indifference is kind of inevitable right from early on you know Dro uh you know uh R and later Professor they all you know have this idea of you know getting people involved again I totally agree but I think there's a limit right PE eventually uh those who can actually participate in a meaningful manner tend to be few in number uh if that's the case then what is the solution that that goes to my own met ratic proposal namely instead of you know making the the the the playing field equal which to me is a beautiful but Impossible Dream uh what we should do is to make sure the elites are compassionate right George W bush had this term compassionate conservatism uh so maybe to me the solution is compassion compassionate elitism or compassion based mocracy um and so it's very you know again using the sort of confusion resources in the confusion the term Dar a great human being right so great human being is higher on the political hierarchy but the the this human being is great precisely because he or she can serve the small people the masses right so if winners are winners because they can serve the losers maybe it can change the dynamic right and uh so just you know put all this together uh what I'm proposing uh it's not pure meritocracy rather kind of make regime right and I totally agree with you we should let people say on all sort of important matters AI those things people should be involved people's voice should be heard but at the same time the masses uh are not ready to make S decisions for themselves we should give more voice to the elites who are compassionate the right canot elas right so the ideal regime is this mix regime that combines people's voice with the voice of responsible and compassionate Elite uh although I'm using a lot of confusion resources uh actually you know I think the American founding fathers the Federalists made that kind of argument themselves actually American regime at his funding was more like the kind of mixed regime uh I'm proposing here of course there are a lot of problem with that regime you know slavery womans cannot vote um and we should get rid of that but when we get rid of that I think maybe by accident we get rid of the good designs the check and balances against the people uh as well maybe we should go back to that regime so just to um uh oh also about this the the is education uh so I I I recognize all those problems um but I think in instead of uh um getting away from this kind exam based uh system um I mean uh I think you and also David Brooks uh a new nework time colonist proposed that we should have a more kind of a whole person you know uh uh diverse approach to education um but the problem is that you know when we talk about kind whole person approach uh you know um um in terms of exam of course it's not fair to the poor uh kids but the whole person approach is even uh more unfair to the poor kids right you know my son I can give him piano lons right you know he can learn a lot of different things so he can become a whole a fuller person uh uh whereas maybe uh all resources of a poor family all they can do is to send their kids to some you know crem cour you know uh private you know training sessions right so in I think in exams poor children are unfairly treated but still they have a chance when we try to get rid of it then actually maybe we end up with something even worse even more unfair to the poor children and then within system I think we can have Solutions right you know if if you can send your kids to private schools there will be a very high taxation on private schools that money will be used to support Public Schools right and uh uh uh uh um income tax will more uh even distributed among all public schools and uh you know uh crme you know sat courses will be offered to all all children right uh for for free and also I I heard a propos I think people are doing that in Texas some te uh schools in Texas uh so public un like Texas UT Austin they uh they admit the top 5% of any public school so if you end up in a poor you know inner city school but if you make it top 5% that means you you have drive right you're smart enough then it's just like you come from background although your scores are not as high but your R scores are are high enough so I think there are uh solutions to this kind of a fake uh mury um so to to just uh conclude uh and you know um I think in your book the tyal marage uh actually you made a distinction between two kind of meritocracy one the kind of traditional style Poli meritocracy which actually are sympathetic to uh and then the kind of technocratic version of meritocracy uh which you criticized today and I think actually what I'm proposing is more like a flal version of mury so maybe we you know we're not that part uh in the end so in terms of political meritocracy uh you know I think the problem with the ocratic mocracy is really uh it's it's rooted in um kind of a radical individualism and Unbound capitalism and uh so that kind of mocracy the pur of money pills off different P Pursuits of different merits so maybe we would oh I just uh so so maybe you know uh in terms of that what we need is a diversity uh on of of marriage uh not you know getting rid of meritocracy in term of politic meritocracy it doesn't against diversity only in politics we need to give more voice to the um uh to the uh uh compassionate people if you're if you're not if you don't care about it you can do something else uh you can be successful in some other things like you know being a a food and professor of philosophy who just cannot shut up uh but I'll just shut up now thank [Applause] you well you've given me a lot to think about let me just make a few brief replies first uh I'm not against uh expanding education so I'm not critical of the Democrats or of liberals for emphasizing education what I think is the mistake is to respond to the widening inequalities of income and wealth only or mainly by telling people go to university that's what I'm criticizing I think that expanding access encouraging people to pursue higher education is a good thing increasing access for those who can't afford it is even more important but that's because education is valuable for its own sake it is not an adequate answer to inequality that's my argument that's where I criticize those mainstream parties who for decades have responded to inequality not by dealing with structural sources of inequality or their own policies that led to it but by saying it's your responsibility if you don't improve yourself as we encouraged you to do and so that that's that leads to a condition which we have today which is one in which those who don't have a degree feel looked down upon by Elites and they suffer wage stagnation for the last five decades in real terms the wages of the median worker have been more or less flat that's for five decades so there's also an insult implicit in the advice if you want to deal with if you want to compete and win in the global economy go to university the implicit insult is if you're struggling in the new economy and if you didn't take our advice and get yourself a degree your failure is your fault the problem is not our economic policies that led to this inequality it's your fault for not Rising as we told you to and this is especially uh kind of it seems to me misplaced emphasis given the fact and we forget this those of us who spend our days in the company of the credential we easily forget that most of our fellow citizens do not have a University degree in the United States only about 35% of adults have a four-year degree and in most European countries it's actually a little bit less so if 2third or more of our fellow citizens don't have a university degree it's a mistake to create an economy that sets as a necessary condition for dignified work and a decent life a University degree that most people don't have which leads me to argue for a greater emphasis on the Dignity of work and by the Dignity of work I don't just mean greater honor and recognition for those who contribute to the common good but in ways that uh don't depend on a University diploma I also mean creating an economy that enables them to flourish those people working at the ports those workers who are worried about machines and robots displacing their jobs they have a legitimate worry now the the best response is not simply to hold back technology that's not the only alternative another alternative is to ask who decides the direction of technological innovation because new technology can be applied in many different ways it's not in the nature of technology that it it automates U low-paying jobs or low-skilled or medium skilled jobs that's been the emphasis of new technology coming from mainly from Venture capitalists in Silicon Valley they may assume that that's the best use of technology to replace work to replace labor in low and medium skilled jobs but that's not given by the nature of Technology as such technology at its best serves our human purposes another way in which technology could be developed would be to say not to replace work but to enhance work to make the work of low and medium skilled workers more productive so that their productivity the productivity of those workers will would increase so that they could capture a greater share of productivity growth but that requires deliberate well that requires public deliberation about what purposes we want Ai and other forms of new technology to serve and those debates that deliberation I think should involve everyone one including working people now we need structures for that deliberation to be meaningful and trade unions are one traditional such structure and today labor unions have gone into decline in large part because of political and economic choices that we have made in our societies I think one of my favorite examp examples of a labor union demand is one from the late 19th century the most influential labor movement in the United States in the late 19th century was a group called The Knights of Labor and among their demands were the familiar demands for higher wages shorter hours safer working conditions but they also had another demand which was was for reading rooms in factories so that when workers were on their brakes they could they they they wouldn't be at home smoking pot or taking opioids or or uh drinking that on their breaks workers could go and read and learn in Reading rooms to equip themselves to participate more effectively in public deliberation and maybe they wouldn't rise to be at the Apex of a political meritocracy maybe some of them would one of the most successful governments in British political history was the government just after the second world war when the labor government actually they voted Winston Churchill the famous Winston Churchill out after the war the conservative and they brought in a labor government and that labor government achieved some of the greatest achievements certainly of any post-war last Century Government they established the British National Health Service they established the London system of Transportation the subway system uh and a great many other aspects of the British welfare state and seven members of that cabinet not only didn't have a University degree the Prime Minister was was an Oxford graduate but in his cabinet were seven former coal miners and ordinary working people who brought into being these essentially the British welfare state as it existed and they did a better job I think of governing than many of the highly credentialed technocratic uh equipped political leaders that we see in a great many of our societies today now that's about technology that's about the Dignity of work uh Professor B mentioned our being together I'd forgotten this when Donald Trump the day after Donald Trump was elected in 2016 it came as a shock to many not only to Professor by but to most American uh Elites it came as a shock it didn't I didn't find it quite so surprising because it's not surprising that after decades of neoliberal globalization and widening inequalities and meritocratic ideas of success justifying or rationalizing those inequalities after Decades of working people being told your struggles are your fault because you didn't improve yourself no wonder they felt that Elites were looking down with disdain and no wonder they would therefore support an otherwise disagreeable political figure who channeled and articulated their sense of grievance their sense of being looked down upon Donald Trump said in this last election that he was the candidate of Retribution now he meant retribution against his political opponents but we working people responded to this understandably because not only because some of them responded to the racist parts of Trump's appeal or the anti-immigrant parts of Trump's appeal the xenophobia the hyper nationalism but also because they felt looked down upon for Generations by Democrats and Republicans alike and we still haven't emerged from this condition so I think the way to emerge from it is to promote the Dignity of work to revitalize and renew public discourse to spread and we talked about access to education there is no reason why civic education education in the kind of debates we've been having here in these in the privileged places like peing University and Harvard there's no reason why moral and civic education has to be restricted to the confines of places like this I think it can and should be made available in Reading rooms in factories in um in local neighborhood settings there are online resources I understand some some very good online resources for those who want to watch lectures and debates about Justice whether or not they happen to go to a university like bada or like Harvard so I'm for expanding education including civic education beyond the walls of privileged places so that ordinary people working people can not only take pride in their work but can also take pride in being being able to develop the skills of reasoning and arguing with their fellow citizens across class lines rich and poor alike about big questions that matter including questions of what makes for a just Society what we owe one another as fellow citizens and what it means to seek the common good this broader equality of condition uh it seems to me this broader civic education can begin to move away from a condition where uh ordinary working people feel looked down upon by those who govern them uh and can also maybe diminish the hubris and the arrogance of the elites are looking down and bring us at least one small step closer uh to a politics of the common good that's the alternative that I would propose okay thank you very much uh first for uh Professor B's challenges and also for Professor Sander's responses but we do have to move to the third part uh we have 10 minutes left so uh anyone in audience oh this this lady you are the first one yeah someone give her a microphone thank you uh thank you Professor for the uh inspiring speech and the discussion that you lead and I really appreciate the idea of like encouraging the Dignity of work and also like to ask those Elite to be more humble but I wonder like I think these are more like the perspective for the people who win so I wonder what will you say to the people who lose or like the people like the in the media or the normal like the normal people people let's say because um uh I think it's good to ask those Elites like to change they have to change their attitude towards success or their attitude towards other people but I think it takes time and our society also needs time for change so for the people like the normal people living in this like generation or this time like what can they do so can they just like endure or like wait for the change promoted by the people who win so will that be another kind of arrogance of the elit or like an other type of uh reproduction of the meritocracy right thank you for that I I would say not just that working people ordinary people should not just endure and wait for meritocratic Elites to look more favorably upon them I agree with you that's a very important point historically uh what's brought about change in the direction of Greater equality is has been when Ordinary People organize themselves into social movements develop the Civic skills and Civic virtues to participate to organize to form movements to try to move their society so that they are participants and agents of change and Improvement not just sitting back as if they are victims helpless waiting for Elites to Accord them greater recognition I'm reminded of the time when in this was in 1968 Martin Luther King went to speak to some striking sanitation workers in Tennessee and this was actually just shortly before he was assassinated and what he said to them was this he said the person who picks up our garbage these were garbage collectors the person who picks up our garbage in the final analysis is as important as the physician because if the garbage collector doesn't do his job well disease will spread will be rampant in the community and then he said he he said all labor has dignity he was making an argument to the garbage collectors themselves about the self about the recognition they deserve from The Wider Society so it was a support for their strike but a support that focused on honor recognition and esteem and of course the material conditions that should flow from it another example that comes to mind is I remembered and there was a student here from Brazil who joined in the discussion on a couple of visits to bra well on one visit in particular I made to Brazil I went I was taken to a fabella one of the slums in the Hills outside Rio deiro with um with very large populations of people lowincome people who live in very difficult circumstances and there are drug gangs that control many of these communities and from time to time the military is sent in to try to take back control from the military and there's tremendous violence as well as poverty and I visited on a couple of occasions fabellas like this in Brazil and gathered with citizens especially younger people of those communities to discuss their their view of their own condition and their desire to have their voice matter and we had discussions about Justice and the meaning of the common good and about Security in a community and about dealing with violence in a community and I met a a man there his name was reinaldo and he helped lead the discussion he's a middle-aged man and I learned that uh he told me he didn't read he was illiterate until he was 25 years old he was a waste picker he made his living by going to people's garbage cans and finding things of value that he could pull out of those garbage cans and once in a well-off neighborhood he found in a garbage can a torn book and he was curious to know about this book and the owner of the house came out and asked him what he was doing and it turns out the owner of the house was a retired professor of philosophy and the torn book in the garbage can that reinaldo found was an old copy of the the trial of Socrates it was a text of Plato and the Phil retired philosophy Professor because Rinaldo was curious taught him how to read the book and they discussed Plato and reinaldo became a kind of he calls him well he was a kind of fabella philosopher and he taught by Leading discussions among the people in in his neighborhood and these were the people people whom I had the the privilege of meeting and what struck me about that experience is that reinaldo and I People Like Us are actually engaged fundamentally in the same in the same vocation which is to teach philosophy not as an abstract discipline that resides in the heavens but philosophy really belongs in the city where citizens gather including ordinary citizens who who can learn to reason together argue together think critically about the common life we share and how to improve it and so that's the kind of experience that I have in mind when I think we can aspire to something better to a politics of the common good that includes everyone not only those of us lucky enough to attend places like this thank you for that question uh one more oh sorry she has already grasped grasp thank you professors I'm Roxy and thank you Professor SEL for guiding me to to the Limit I really enjoyed it and my question can be a good supplement to the last question so what are your Solutions and advice for those people who have realized the issues of meritocracy and had the courage to get out of the system only to find themselves going into nihilism and losing their purpose of believing so what's the fine line between going against Merit uh Kar and going for nihilism thank you going for nihilism is that do you find that that's a tempting possibility for many of your peers uh yes that attributes to a lot of the young people today that lose their meaning of working and also T ping is an example Tong ping lying flat yeah and also some people too when they get out of the working system they don't know how to what for system to follow again like right yeah yeah well there's no quick and simple answer except to say that we need to create sources of meaning in our societies that can supplement and enrich the values of competing and winning in in the kind of meritocratic competition that we've been discussing I think think one of part of what's missing in our in our public life and I think this is true in societies around the world our public discourse is is hollow there's an emptiness a lack of meaning I think that's one of the reasons there was such an Embrace of and this goes back 10 or 20 years such an Embrace of GDP almost as a as a philosophy and ideology a source of meaning in and of itself but then people quickly realize that that's not enough maximizing GDP or achieving material Prosperity just as people like as Aiden pointed out earlier realize that competing and winning is not enough because people we all then even when we succeed ask well what's next what what does this mean so I think we need to cultivate Beyond greater civic participation and deliberation from that has to come sources of value and meaning that can't be provided either by markets or by technology but only by us and in a way this connects with the themes of of all three lectures technology can't meaning technology is a tool that we need to direct meritocratic competition and Market competition can't provide meaning if anything they tend to erode forms of community that can sustain traditions of meaning and new interpretations of those Traditions so this is not a simple solution but what your question prompted all of us should prompt all of us to reflect on how we can create sources of meaning that are not merely privatized but that have some public Dimension which I think requires philosophy in the broadest sense of looking at the philosophical traditions that we inhabit in trying to reinterpret and Revitalize them in ways that can give sources of meaning not a single answer to question question s of value but plural a plurality of interpretations not only about what makes for a just Society but also what makes for a good and satisfying and fulfilling mode of life that's that's a big project and we would need more than three sessions together fully to explore it but I want to thank everyone I've been impressed Professor by not only by the English language abilities of the of this group of students but also by the courage to stand up and voice opinions especially opinions that are sometimes sensitive and controversial and personal and I've also been impressed by the spirit of Engagement to engage in disagreement and we had a lot of disagreements over these three evenings but with the spirit of Civility and mutual respect and that I find that impressive and also a source of hope so for all of that thank you very much well I think it's perfect timing uh it's already past 9:00 and I as I'm as I mentioned uh Professor has to fly back to America tonight uh so uh we do have a final section we will give a gift to you uh please please come [Applause] up thank you very much let me yeah [Applause] yeah yeah uh let me explain a little bit uh this is of course flower but more importantly it contains uh Willow branches because in Asian China we have this habit we have this uh custom when dear friends are leing we break off Willow branches uh to simp symbolize friendship and learning so this is our way to uh say to you that you are our friend and we will miss you very very much thank you so much thank you [Applause]